tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post6136982358083366165..comments2024-03-29T03:57:26.974-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: HarbingersGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-5094091800618708582013-02-09T21:22:09.970-05:002013-02-09T21:22:09.970-05:00You raise a good point re: bribes in the third wor...You raise a good point re: bribes in the third world. That is a major cost for anyone who wants to do business there, even major US corporations: I know AT&T wholly abandoned some sunk costs about ten years ago down in South America because they decided they were just unwilling to continue to pay the bribes.<br /><br />So that gives our American worker some cushion, as long as he stays out of places like Chicago.<br /><br />As re: employers as taxpayers, I think it's fine to revolt if you can get the money from the government; but I'm not as keen on the business putting his costs on other taxpaying citizens. The problem there is very similar to GM taking a taxpayer bailout: if I wanted that company to have my money, I'd have given it to them in return for their goods! As Cassandra put it in a pithy comment at the time of the GM bailout, 'You won't buy our @#$@ cars, so you'll be paying us for them anyway.'<br /><br />So too insofar as the company -- rather than earning the money from us via commerce -- convinces the government to help float its labor costs. Then they don't have to worry about selling me X amount of goods or services: they can just extract the money from me, and all the rest of us, without the bother.<br /><br />So it still strikes me as a gambit that I don't find entirely fair.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-54583835486589743122013-02-07T01:42:59.307-05:002013-02-07T01:42:59.307-05:00"In the case of private employers, they want ...<i>"In the case of private employers, they want someone to do a job, but they don't always want to pay enough for that person to actually survive. Now, logically, if you don't survive you can't show up for work. So the cost of employing someone, if you are to pay the full cost of it, includes pay at such a rate that you can actually survive where you live -- at minimum, food and shelter, and any other absolutely unavoidable costs that living there imposes upon you (some sorts of non-means-tested taxes, say).<br /><br />Insofar as that cost is being pushed off onto the government, the employer is pushing part of his costs off on all of us. That strikes me as improper in a certain way."</i><br /><br /><i>"we shouldn't let the employers game the system by pushing their employment costs off on taxpayers."</i><br /><br />Both of these point at what your seeing as the the employer getting a free ride, in a progression something like this:<br /> -Employer pays less than living wage<br /> -Employee requires assistance to make level of 'livibility'.<br /> -Taxpayer makes up difference (benefit to employer)<br /><br />The hitch in this is that the employer <i>is</i> a taxpayer- and likely a substantial one (barring for the purposes of the normal model the crony-capitalist, or perhaps more correctly crony-socialist corporation), and therefore is much less taking advantage of some 'other', but is more repossessing a portion of paid taxes (perhaps deemed unfairly taken) in a move one might categorize as 'outlaw'.<br /><br />Also; <i>"...but the competitive wages for unskilled workers (which I maintain, unless Douglas should convince me otherwise, are the competitive wages with Pakistan or India or Africa) are starvation wages here."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/is-us-manufacturing-coming-back/" rel="nofollow">It's already starting to happen in regards to China</a>, and it may well begin happening in regards to the S.E. and Central Asian and African areas. That would only be accelerated by rising energy costs and their impact on logistics, and I'm thinking we're not far from a spike, one way or another. Given that, I think my critique bears weight. I still think you're on to something as regards looking at Schumpeter.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261739259295914188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-26379115602687270962013-02-07T01:30:05.933-05:002013-02-07T01:30:05.933-05:00"In the case of private employers, they want ...<i>"In the case of private employers, they want someone to do a job, but they don't always want to pay enough for that person to actually survive. Now, logically, if you don't survive you can't show up for work. So the cost of employing someone, if you are to pay the full cost of it, includes pay at such a rate that you can actually survive where you live -- at minimum, food and shelter, and any other absolutely unavoidable costs that living there imposes upon you (some sorts of non-means-tested taxes, say).<br /><br />Insofar as that cost is being pushed off onto the government, the employer is pushing part of his costs off on all of us. That strikes me as improper in a certain way."</i><br /><br /><br /><i>"we shouldn't let the employers game the system by pushing their employment costs off on taxpayers."</i><br /><br />In both these your framing the situation as you see it- a cycle of:<br /> -Employer pays less than living wage<br /> -Employee requires gov't assistance<br /> -taxpayers pick up the remaining 'wage' to achieve livability<br />and the assumption is that therefore the employer gets off on a discount. I'd argue that's incorrect- Firstly, the employer <i>is</i> a taxpayer, and likely a substantial one at that (for our purposes, I'm excluding crony-capitalism- maybe now crony-socialism large corporations), therefore he's really just repossessing some of his taxes, which limits the revenue of the government, but does NOT remove that capital from the work-for-living-pay-balance. It's a bit of your outlaw mini-revolt, isn't it?<br /><br />As for:<i>" but the competitive wages for unskilled workers (which I maintain, unless Douglas should convince me otherwise, are the competitive wages with Pakistan or India or Africa) are starvation wages here."</i><br /><br />It's really unskilled wages in Pak/India/Africa+logistics+palm grease+some other misc. vs. living wage in the U.S. <a href="http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/is-us-manufacturing-coming-back/" rel="nofollow">We're already seeing some manufacturing come back from China</a>, and this may also start to become quite reasonable in comparison to even the areas you mention (though I think India is more like China already).douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261739259295914188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-20704780182963083612013-02-06T00:34:00.424-05:002013-02-06T00:34:00.424-05:00Ha. It's already clear enough to me why Marx ...Ha. It's already clear enough to me why Marx was wrong about the things I cited! It's interesting, too, that he was a spoiled little college kid himself, whose father was always pressuring him to learn how to make a living. He much preferred to live off of Engels, writing treatises about the evil of money and Utopias in which people like him could do what they liked without producing anything that anyone else wanted or needed. No wonder he liked the idea of taking the wealth that previous capitalists had accumulated and living on it in comfort.<br /><br />Anyway, we agree totally on welfare and redistributionist government programs.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-15951583361572115832013-02-05T22:24:23.391-05:002013-02-05T22:24:23.391-05:00Is the idea that the freedom is so pernicious that...<i>Is the idea that the freedom is so pernicious that it will lead to societal collapse, which then will lead to bondage?</i><br /><br />That's close to Schumpeter's idea: it isn't freedom itself, but the prosperity engendered by a robust market, that leads to the collapse. Specifically he thought that capitalism would cause people to send their children to college instead of the farm or the shop or the factory. This would, he thought, lead to the rise of a wealthy intellectual class who were insulated from the actual productive work of making capitalism function. Being wealthy and educated, they would be able to enact their preferences into law; but being insulated from a practical understanding of capitalism, they would destroy it because they despised it.<br /><br />Now, as it turns out, he was quite right about what turns out to be a very important part of Obama's coalition: progressive young people whose parents earned enough to send them to college, but who have never been seriously engaged in anything captialistic themselves, and who despise it as selfish and mean. They work to impose their values, which are impractical but feel better, on a capitalist system that can't survive the costs they are imposing. That class is a significant part of the problem, as he rightly foresaw.<br /><br />Is that a necessary outcome? I don't know. Maybe it'll work better next time. Maybe we can learn from the lessons of this collapse.<br /><br />You should read Schumpeter, actually, because he explains just why Marx was wrong about the things you cite (and, more broadly, about the general trend Marx predicted of capitalism grinding toward monopoly -- Schumpeter's reading on this point is a very insightful critique of many of our federal agencies, especially the CIA). <br /><br />Now, on the other hand, Marx wasn't gloomy: he was pleased that the collapse was coming, because it would usher in a happier socialist model. I'm gloomy, in one sense, because I don't want the socialist model (nor do I think it will be happier; and notice that the class I expect to revolt is the opposite class from Marx. You can distinguish my philosophy from Ayn Rand's, who also expected a collapse of capitalism as I do, and a revolt of the class I expect to revolt, by the fact that I really think it's important that the poor not be allowed to starve. The temporary bondage I expect is about finding terms on which they can be both saved, and taught the skills they will need in the new era).<br /><br />However, I'm not gloomy about capitalism (and certainly not about <i>freedom</i>): I'm gloomy about our current situation, which I think has made a collapse inevitable. But I think we can restore the good out of the collapse, and learn lessons against the future.<br /><br />So maybe next time it will work! <br /><br />If it is to work, though, we must avoid anything resembling welfare programs. The government must not be redistributive. How we get around Schumpeter's problem, while honoring liberty, is another question. But it's an important question.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-88652445550398334562013-02-05T14:59:13.063-05:002013-02-05T14:59:13.063-05:00Free markets address starvation better than comman...Free markets address starvation better than command economies (whether feudal or socialist) even in the short term, not just the long term.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-10568085071000149912013-02-05T14:56:15.798-05:002013-02-05T14:56:15.798-05:00PS. Well, shoot. We're having one of those m...PS. Well, shoot. We're having one of those moments again. I take you to be saying that we will be forced to turn to bondage as the best means of leading to more freedom? Or perhaps that we should accept that bondage is inevitable, and concentrate on limited its scope so as to hasten the day when liberty can return? Honestly, I have a hard time seeing why a concerted effort to introduce more freedom into the market is going to lead to bondage. Is the idea that the freedom is so pernicious that it will lead to societal collapse, which then will lead to bondage? Or is this going back to the idea that some workers are so unlucky that they have nothing to sell but their freedom? You can see I'm guessing again at your meaning.<br /><br />You truly are as gloomy about the future of the free market as Marx was. He was sure that the free market would shortly destroy itself by inspiring a revolt among desperately mistreated workers even at the same moment that it was poised to raise wages by 50% in a few decades, and to lower the average worker's hours per week from 65 to 56. He believed workers were stuck at the bottom of the heap forever, and that they could never accumulate capital. He believed that free-market employers unfairly refused to pay workers a penny more than was necessary to let them keep body and soul together long enough to reproduce, so that they could never improve their lives. He believed that employers were stealing the value of the workers' labor whenever they sold the produced goods at a profit above this unfair wage, and that neither management skill nor capital could ever add any value to the goods. He believed that capitalism had created a huge amount of wealth, but that it was destined to die so that its accumulated wealth could fund a Utopian state in which all work would be both ennobling and uncoerced.<br /><br />In short, he was gloomy about all the things that were about to get much better, and sanguine about the things that were about to threaten to wrap the whole thing around the axle.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-28684644271854452782013-02-05T14:40:45.850-05:002013-02-05T14:40:45.850-05:00Well, I've read Marx too. In fact, Marx was a...Well, I've read Marx too. In fact, Marx was a big fan of Adam Smith (as well as Hegel), and drew heavily on his arguments: in many ways, they aren't opposing arguments (as we often see them presented), but the one is an evolution of the other. Whether it is adaptive is another question.<br /><br />Also I've read Joseph Schumpeter, my favorite of the three economists, who explained why Marx was wrong about many things. But Schumpeter also didn't think the free market (or capitalism) could survive, for reasons of his own. That is a constant even in his pro-market, pro-capitalist views, to which I am closest philosophically.<br /><br />So what I'm thinking is that we've gotten to the point that we're looking at the death of the system. Marx wanted an evolution into a socialist system, and I am citing that as a possibility -- but as a threat to guard against. Still, I think it is the most likely possibility because it is the one that is both conceptually mapped out, and comports with the preference of the majority to think about America in collective ways.<br /><br />I suppose, insofar as you're right to say that this position of mine is Marxist, I'm arguing that we should take the opportunity to return to feudalism instead of progressing to socialism. :) But if you like the free market, that's the right way to go -- it grew out of the feudal approach once before, and will probably do so again. (In fact I think it will do so: I suspect this feudalistic system would last only one or at most two generations, given the undesirability of being unfree and the option to rise out of it.) On the other hand, socialist models (like the Argentine one) don't tend to reintroduce a genuine free market, except as black markets. They tend to cyclically seize from the rich, and clamp down on whatever market activity has arisen.<br /><br />Now a purer, non-feudal approach is also possible: instead of returning to feudalism, return to early-stage capitalism. My fear is that leaves people starving. I agree with the assessment that markets handle starvation better in the long term, but people don't starve in the long term. The people I'm hoping to save will starve before they can adapt to a market reality.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-12837842538314522882013-02-05T14:24:56.626-05:002013-02-05T14:24:56.626-05:00I don't know how to distinguish between a &quo...I don't know how to distinguish between a "position" and "an argument you are making for the disadvantages inherent in a particular arrangement." When you tell me why such-and-such won't work (e.g., you can't make a free market work because some people will need charity for lack of valuable services to sell), I respond with arguments about how it not only will work, but will work better than any of the things we've ever tried as alternatives. When you say that the free market should be faulted for shoving obligations onto the taxpayer, I respond with arguments about how it does no such thing. These all seem like positions to me; to the extent that yours aren't positions, then neither are mine.<br /><br />It shouldn't be surprising that most of my arguments coincide with the thinking of Adam Smith; what else would you expect from someone of my professed views? I was surprised to find how many of yours might have come straight out of the works of Karl Marx. I'm not saying that as an exaggeration, a provocative joke, or a rhetorical device. In any case, neither of us is propounding brand-new ideas; we're both on very well-traveled ground.<br /><br />I never feel bad about not being able to understand you on first reading. If I don't understand, I probe until you find a way to make yourself clear; spontaneous conversations are that way. If I think I do understand, I often try to test your approach by applying it to another situation (e.g., if a position is suspect because a majority of Americans don't support it, what about the many positions you hold that meet that same description? If not, what's special about this particular minority position?).<br /><br />I brought the issue up only because I wondered if you realized that the difficulty was mutual. I take it for granted that we will both sometimes have difficulty getting a point across. The main difference is, of course, that I'm right. :-)Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-1816884727004710412013-02-05T12:47:08.418-05:002013-02-05T12:47:08.418-05:00By the way, don't feel bad about having troubl...By the way, don't feel bad about having trouble understanding what I mean on first reading. I'm reading Hegel's philosophy of mind right now, and he says things like this:<br /><br />"But though the good is the universal of will -- a universal determined in itself -- and thus including in it particularity -- still so far as this particularity is in the first instance still abstract, there is no principle at hand to determine it. Such determination therefore starts up also outside that universal; and as heteronomy or determinance of a will which is free and has rights of its own, there awakes here the deepest contradiction." (Part III of the _Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences_, section 508, trans. William Wallace)<br /><br />Now what he's talking about is the process that a self-conscious, rational mind must go through in order to arrive at a concept like good or evil. And he's finding the ground for that in a place you'd probably like him to find it -- exclusively, that is, in the self-determination of the willing subject.<br /><br />But if you can get his meaning without reading it five or six times, you're a better student of philosophy than I am!Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-46927911028177084292013-02-05T12:28:21.620-05:002013-02-05T12:28:21.620-05:00Now, it is highly likely that the collapse of the ...Now, it is highly likely that the collapse of the government will include some attempt at further concentration of power. I think during the moment of the collapse they will be unable to make good on it, but after a time they may be in a position to try. <br /><br />So we must be prepared, in the first place, to replace the state with these independent structures. But we must also be prepared to resist and refuse the return of the corrupt state, should it attempt to restore its dominion under a new, stronger socialism. And thus, though our aim is not to overthrow the state, we must be prepared to recognize when the state has lost its legitimacy to govern, and to refuse to allow it to return. And that may very well mean armed resistance, depending on how much strength the corrupt holdover state should still be able to bring to bear.<br /><br />So in addition to setting up black markets, we need to be preparing to support a resistance movement that can declare, and make good, its freedom from the dying state.<br /><br />Again, this is not a position, but a set of thoughts. But it suggests a set of concrete actions which are actually illegal, and puts us on the road of being revolutionaries rather than citizens.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-86463027550291866942013-02-05T12:12:13.326-05:002013-02-05T12:12:13.326-05:00And so what began as an inquiry into the minimum w...And so what began as an inquiry into the minimum wage has become, at last, an endorsement of the idea of setting up illegal structures to undermine state authority; with the eventual aim not of <i>overthrowing</i> the state, but of <i>replacing</i> it with free and independent structures at the moment when the state's own internal contradictions bring it to the point of collapse. <br /><br />There won't be any minimum wage, I don't think, after; but there will be bondage again. It is important to take some thought about this, to ensure that it doesn't extend for longer than one's lifetime (i.e., is not inheritable), can be escaped under certain circumstances, and is otherwise humane and continues to entail certain rights. And that is what I think -- but it is not my <i>position</i>. It's just what I diagnose as the best case scenario for liberty; the best way to ensure that the coming collapse leads to more freedom and not less, and avoids the mass starvation that could be expected to attend the collapse given the large number of unskilled people with no means of support besides the collapsing system itself.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-13618798729105345692013-02-05T11:47:01.851-05:002013-02-05T11:47:01.851-05:00I'm quite sure I would be terrible at explaini...I'm quite sure I would be terrible at explaining what you mean, although I think I could make a good stab at it by saying, "See Adam Smith." :) (I have, actually: I had the opportunity once to read an original of <i>The Wealth of Nations</i>.)<br /><br />One reason we may be having trouble understanding each other is that you are arguing against what you take to be my position. I've said several times that I don't actually have a position, not in a fully thought-out way. I'm still thinking about these issues, not declaring (as Smith might) that this solution is certainly right. <br /><br />I don't think the free market is the answer to the coming collapse because I think a lot of the people we're talking about are so lacking in skills and abilities that they have nothing useful to trade. I do think they'll need to be taken care of by someone, and the only thing they have to trade that would make that worthwhile is long term service -- if you're going to go to the expense and trouble of teaching them how to farm (say), and supporting them while they do, you have to expect a return on that investment. <br /><br />I don't think that private charity can suffice, either, because there are so many of these people. So those are practical objections.<br /><br />But there is also a political objection, which is that we can't really move the ship off this course. <br /><br />Now, I suppose you could read my vision of a bondage relationship as a kind of free market: an old kind, in the way that apprenticeships used to work (as we said long ago). But I don't see how you can simply replace what we have with a free market without some bondage system like that, because people will simply starve.<br /><br />The alternative is something like Argentina, which has wavered between socialism and market reforms for generations. When things get bad enough, they do things that are anti-market like freezing prices. Naturally this leads to shortages. That leads to government buying up foodstuffs and distributing them, which leads to more shortages. <br /><br />These things don't really work, but as you can see, they are the more obvious choice for a polity like ours or Argentina's. It's the natural outflow of that instinct to think (a) collectively, and (b) of the purpose of government as something like 'stopping bad things from happening to anyone.' If we are to avoid it, I think it must be by derailing the government: otherwise, they will drag us down that path.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-24841794771967274052013-02-05T02:35:43.668-05:002013-02-05T02:35:43.668-05:00You were being coy about what you meant even after...You were being coy about what you meant even after I told you I didn't have a clue what you were getting at -- especially because your link seemed (and still seems) to support my argument at the expense of your own. :-) So I told you what I thought the article really meant. And I still like you, too, very much indeed, even though you can't understand a word I say, which is why I keep trying despite my exasperation. You are aware, I suppose, that you're very bad at giving a construction of my meaning that closely represents what I actually mean?<br /><br />I know that you meant, in part, that there's nothing we can do except wait for a total crash. I've already said what I think about that idea, and you probably know that I see no reason to suppose that people in Argentina are helpless to avert the disaster they're bringing on themselves by continuing to support socialist nonsense.<br /><br />But we are in complete agreement that extra-legal solutions may be part of the required response to the same kind of nonsense in this country, and if you're coming around to thinking that we should get to work on them now instead of waiting for the crash, then we're in even more agreement.<br /><br />As for drugs, I've never cared about making them illegal, nor do I have the slightest moral interest in anything the government has to say about what drugs I may not buy without a prescription, or what drugs I may not buy under any circumstances. Drugs and alcohol are the same issue for me. It's peculiar and inexplicable that the law distinguishes between them. I distinguish only between using and abusing them. I'm not interesting in using them, for the most part, so they're not an important part of my life.<br /><br />I do care about free markets, and will subvert stupid government policy on that score any way I get a chance. I'm an enthusiastic black marketer. Raw milk is an interesting example, and one of my most frequent black market indulgences -- "for pet consumption only," of course. When I encounter a bad law, I don't worry that I'll be a bad person if I break it. I ask, "How do you plan to stop me?" I believe it's healthy for commerce of that kind to stay so common, so widespread, that enforcement of new restrictions appears futile to would-be busybody lawmakers.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-39719040409141256262013-02-05T01:09:26.986-05:002013-02-05T01:09:26.986-05:00Is that what you think I meant, or are you exhibit...Is that what you think I meant, or are you exhibiting a lawyer's tendency to argue her own interest? :) <br /><br />Never mind. Whether for that reason or some other, you're very bad at giving a construction of my meaning that closely represents what I actually mean. I still like you, and it's still fun to talk to you.<br /><br />What I meant was that any hope for positive reform comes at the end of the current legal regime. And thus we may be in much the same position of the good people of Argentina: pursuing extra-legal solutions, even before the end, as a matter of conscience. This is leading me to rethink those who are doing so now (e.g., those selling illegal drugs like marijuana, whom I've tended to think very badly of in the past).<br /><br />In fact, it might be worth exploring setting up such networks now, as a means of preparing to steal that march. Here I'm thinking not of illegal drugs, but of defiance measures such as the raw milk movement. If you're not aware of it (though you probably are), it's about folks who own cows or goats selling raw milk to people who want it in direct defiance of Federal law.<br /><br />More and more, I think that tearing down the government -- and setting up systems to defy it -- may be the right way to proceed. Black markets may have a moral nature, here as in Argentina.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-44553005568043058272013-02-05T00:03:56.157-05:002013-02-05T00:03:56.157-05:00It means that we can hurt our economy by undermini...It means that we can hurt our economy by undermining the free market just as Argentina has done. It means that a black market, which is another name for a free market that the command-control bureaucrats try unsuccessfully to strangle, always springs up when the government imposes price controls (such as the minimum wage, just another form of price control). It means that even when free-market supporters are in the minority, they are critical to a nation's economic health, and they should never give up. Never, never, never, never.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-16828446784300198752013-02-04T23:24:25.962-05:002013-02-04T23:24:25.962-05:00Yes, I see you didn't follow it. I think you&...Yes, I see you didn't follow it. I think you're not as far away as you may fear, though. <br /><br />Try again: I think you may be close to seeing it. Why <i>did</i> I send you to the article on Argentina? What's the similarity between what Argentina has done wrong (this whole last century, more or less), and the current policies we face in America? What does it mean that a black market may be their only hope to avoid mass starvation, given our stated principle that we judge a system by how well it supports the weak?Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-13919514207721834492013-02-04T22:27:46.608-05:002013-02-04T22:27:46.608-05:00I didn't follow that. We shouldn't give u...I didn't follow that. We shouldn't give up on traditional structures like chivalry even though they don't command the loyalty of a majority of us any more (if they ever did), but the free market is to be abandoned because a majority of the people don't want it? And the distinction is that chivalry doesn't require a legal framework, but both chivalry and the free market sometimes defy a legal framework? Is the idea that a minority position is futile if it requires a legal framework?<br /><br />No legal framework has ever really stamped out a free market for long. The free market was born in the middle of entrenched command economies. Once the idea is out there, it will always keep flowering here and there, and people will keep noticing that it increases prosperity wherever it is tried. That inspires resentment and envy, certainly, but also emulation and competition, especially when people are allowed to leave their own areas and move to areas where there is economic freedom. A free market doesn't require dominance to work better than a command economy, although where it does become dominant it works even better. It's always worth persuading people one at a time to see its value, even if they're in the minority.<br /><br />One of the reasons socialism tends toward despotism is that it's so hard to maintain command-economy and free-market trends side by side without the command-economy side getting competed out of existence. Unable to compete effectively, socialism turns to force, or it starts to loosen up and allow more free-market activity (see Sweden; China).<br /><br />Not sure why you sent me to a story about Argentina, a country that has willfully destroyed its economy in the last few years by nationalizing private industry, engaging in trade wars, jacking up taxes, degrading the currency, spurring runaway inflation in the 25%-30% range (hey, who would have predicted that?), and now, per your link, freezing food prices for two months. That's going to lead to widespread hoarding, shortages, and a crash of the food supply. Argentina is a poster child for how to destroy an economy by violating almost every free market precept there is. If they don't cut it out, the only thing that will prevent widespread starvation is a black market, if they're smart enough not to crack down too hard on it.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-47302870995303144972013-02-04T19:17:52.417-05:002013-02-04T19:17:52.417-05:00And before you answer, consider that black markets...And before you answer, consider <a href="http://www.myfoxny.com/story/20958959/argentina-freezes-prices-to-break-inflation-spiral" rel="nofollow">that black markets are sometimes about other things</a>. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-30912703499560429032013-02-04T16:55:27.246-05:002013-02-04T16:55:27.246-05:00...there's no chivalry to save...
There is, t...<i>...there's no chivalry to save...</i><br /><br />There is, though, because there is me; and my wife; and many of my comrades; and many others, here and there. But chivalry doesn't require a legal framework. In fact, it frequently defies it.<br /><br />Now, the parallel here is that the free market sometimes defies a legal framework -- as for example the market for illegal drugs. One thing I've been rethinking lately is whether to reconsider my (generally staunch) positions against the sale (if not the use) of illegal drugs. Maybe one thing that we can do to defy the destructive ruling order is to go full Outlaw.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-35449380291611868682013-02-04T16:33:36.517-05:002013-02-04T16:33:36.517-05:00"There is no free market to save; the majorit..."There is no free market to save; the majority of the people do not want one anyway."<br /><br />Just as there's no chivalry to save; recognize that, and let it go? And courage, personal honor, and public service? Those are more rare qualities than we could wish as well. If most people don't want a free market, it's at least in part because so few people understand why it's valuable, which is why I argue about it all the time on websites like this one. To anyone who will listen, for instance, I'll argue that minimum wage laws achieve the opposite of the effect they intend. If I convince anyone of that, he may still think he's powerless to change them, but maybe he'll at least quit supporting them.<br /><br />To the notion that we should admit defeat on any of these subjects, my response is what Matt Ridley says: "I'm not saying don't worry, be happy. I'm saying don't despair, be ambitious."<br /><br />And in the meantime, hunker down and stockpile food and ammunition.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-54164653864601593502013-02-04T15:01:55.323-05:002013-02-04T15:01:55.323-05:00I accept that your examples re: farmers prove that...I accept that your examples re: farmers prove that I poorly phrased my conception of how businesses also profit at taxpayer expense. There are occasions like the ones you cite I am glad to endorse.<br /><br />But as for this: <i>"A fine intermediate step is to vote for eliminating command-economy measures and replace them with free-market measures..."</i><br /><br />I do that, of course. But I think the ship has sailed. By all means continue to try; but at the same time, it's a good idea to recognize what you can and what you cannot change. There is no free market to save; the majority of the people do not want one anyway. They do not conceive of themselves as independent actors in anything like a free market system, but as Americans who belong to a collective that has responsibility for making sure that nothing too very bad happens to them (or anyone else). <br /><br />They are aligned with smaller, smarter groups that have figured out that a collectivized system is easy to exploit. These include unions, politically connected banks and crony-capitalist firms, and their supporters within the government bureaucracy (who find these structures useful in solidifying and maintaining control over the economy). <br /><br />Your vote -- all of our votes together -- won't begin to fix that. This is what a supermajority of Americans want, once you add in all the people who have a niche in this system. The organizations defending it are well-financed and control the actual levers of power -- not just a vote that might influence, at the margins, some outside issue related to the exercise of that power.<br /><br />So recognize that, and let it go. (Keep voting if you like. I'll do it because it is a citizen's duty, and having a duty is reason enough to do anything.) Look for what you can change: state-level politics are much more subject to conservative influence, and in the event of the inevitable collapse, if we have a plan we can put in place quickly there's a chance we'll steal a march during the chaos.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-48468346042386340922013-02-04T14:39:54.188-05:002013-02-04T14:39:54.188-05:00If the diagnosis is that the command-economy parts...If the diagnosis is that the command-economy parts of our mixed system are helping and the free-market parts of our system are helping, then the diagnosis suggests its own solution -- which needn't take the form of waiting for the whole thing to blow up. A fine intermediate step is to vote for eliminating command-economy measures and replace them with free-market measures, the minimum wage being one of my primary examples, but any other price-fixing law is an equally desirable target for elimination. The fact that the system has mixed elements is no reason for either despair or paralysis, if one group of elements is pernicious while the other is helpful.<br /><br />I don't agree that every time a business backs public policies that reduce its costs, it's voting itself wealth from the taxpayer. Lots of public policies reduce costs just by eliminating irrational red tape and interference. For instance, a farmer might reduce his costs by being relieved of the obligation to build and maintain a special restroom for the exclusive use of an inspector who comes only a few times a year (a real example). A swimming pool might reduce its costs by being relieved of the obligation to build a handicap-accessible lifeguard tower. A medical practice might reduce costs by not being required to file a bazillion Medicare and Medicaid reports.<br /><br />To have the effect you're talking about, the business has to be backing a policy that allows it to duck a bill that it actually owes -- its own current obligation -- and instead send it to the taxpayers for payment. You see businesses as having an obligation to support their workers, so you see them as ducking a bill that they actually owe. I don't see it that way, because I see the businesses' obligation as merely to provide goods or services at prices people will pay (although that's really more a condition of their continued survival rather than an obligation; they're always free to shut down, and often do).<br /><br />But it's certainly true that, if the whole point of a business were to make sure that workers had enough income to attain a certain standard of living, then businesses would be just like deadbeat parents who fail to feed their own children, thereby increasing the burden on the local soupline or equivalent taxpayer-funded safety valve.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-60048962610743273852013-02-04T11:40:24.073-05:002013-02-04T11:40:24.073-05:00Not quite. I don't think that's the solut...Not quite. I don't think that's the solution. I it's the diagnosis. You asked the question, and answered in the same way yourself: how do you stop this, once people have decided to vote themselves wealth? You said we can't, probably, until the whole thing hits the bottom hard.<br /><br />You and I don't agree, maybe, about just where the bottom is or how hard we're going to hit. We disagree about one more thing too, I think, which is who exactly is voting themselves wealth from the public treasury. From my perspective, it's everyone you are thinking of plus one more class: every time a business backs public policies that reduce its costs, thus increasing its profits, it's also voting itself wealth from the taxpayer. If you add in those groups, the split isn't 51/49, it's closer to 80/20.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-61739479861288852492013-02-04T10:45:32.898-05:002013-02-04T10:45:32.898-05:00So if I understand you correctly, the system shoul...So if I understand you correctly, the system should be judged harshly either because it doesn't provide adequately for the poorest people, or because it relies on the taxpayers to do so, or both, largely because we don't have a free-market system but instead have a central-command system -- and the solution is not to push in the direction of a free-market system but to continue in the direction of more central control?Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.com